Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 9:23 am on July 2, 2009 Once again Dan Mitsui has posted something with which I concur wholeheartedly. To summarise he is criticising the approach to hagiography that is by default skeptical of the miraculous. That gives the benefit of the doubt to the materialist ideology of the day over and above the testimony of the hagiographers. However he sums it up best himself in the final part of the post: But this really is beside the point. The debate over the worth of the traditional hagiography should not be reduced to an argument over different categories of authority. For the Bible is not just a book of stories whose veracity we are not permitted to question; it is a record of God's action among men and as man, a record of events that really occurred - and it speaks of marvels. We either live in a world in which these sort of things happen, or we do not. If we believe that we live in such a world, the hagiographies no longer appear ridiculous. If we do not, the Resurrection itself appears ridiculous. The idea that we can save the reputation of the Church by conceding every allowable criticism to the skeptics, and that this will prevent them from crossing the uncrossable line of doubting Revelation itself - is like the idea that a man is less likely to fall off a cliff if he dance as close as possible to its precipice, rather than build his home and live his life miles away. -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 6:32 pm on July 3, 2009 Any comments livewire? -- Posted by Peregrine at 9:08 pm on July 3, 2009 Perhaps you ought to make this more accessible. I may have something to say if I had a general idea of the position of hagiography, what such a position has to do with the debate over the miraculous and at which point materialist ideology intersects. If you want to encourage discussion, provide context. I hope you do because I have an interest in topics in the philosophy of religion. -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 6:06 am on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Peregrine at 5:08 am on July 4, 2009 Perhaps you ought to make this more accessible. I may have something to say if I had a general idea of the position of hagiography, what such a position has to do with the debate over the miraculous and at which point materialist ideology intersects. If you want to encourage discussion, provide context. I hope you do because I have an interest in topics in the philosophy of religion. I'm not sure what you mean by context. -- Posted by Moridin at 6:32 am on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 7:23 pm on July 2, 2009 Once again Dan Mitsui has posted something with which I concur wholeheartedly. To summarise he is criticising the approach to hagiography that is by default skeptical of the miraculous. That gives the benefit of the doubt to the materialist ideology of the day over and above the testimony of the hagiographers. However he sums it up best himself in the final part of the post: But this really is beside the point. The debate over the worth of the traditional hagiography should not be reduced to an argument over different categories of authority. For the Bible is not just a book of stories whose veracity we are not permitted to question; it is a record of God's action among men and as man, a record of events that really occurred - and it speaks of marvels. We either live in a world in which these sort of things happen, or we do not. If we believe that we live in such a world, the hagiographies no longer appear ridiculous. If we do not, the Resurrection itself appears ridiculous. The idea that we can save the reputation of the Church by conceding every allowable criticism to the skeptics, and that this will prevent them from crossing the uncrossable line of doubting Revelation itself - is like the idea that a man is less likely to fall off a cliff if he dance as close as possible to its precipice, rather than build his home and live his life miles away. Nothing new here, David Hume demonstrated that skepticism is the default position to miracles in the 18th century: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish." I totally agree: either we live in a world where miracles happen all the time, completely arbitrary and unpredictable like virgin births, burning bushes, sun standing still on the sky, genocide becoming moral all of a sudden or people coming to live after being clinically dead for several days, or we don't. Science has unequivocally shown that we do not. -- Posted by Effigy at 7:13 am on July 4, 2009 If at any point the author shows his stripes, it would be here: For there is no evidence that St. Denis did not carry his head, or that St. Barbara was not imprisoned in a tower, or that St. Catherine did not destroy the wheel of her torture, or that St. Medard was not sheltered from the rain by an eagle, or that St. Cuthbert was not reverenced by otters after a night of penance in the cold sea. There is no evidence that St. Eustace did not witness the apparition of the Crucified Christ between the antlers of a stag, or that St. Hubert did not witness the same, or that the two men are really one (for who says that God cannot work a similar miracle twice?). There is no evidence that a giant of monstrous appearance did not ferry the Christ Child across the river, or that St. Genevieve's candle was not snuffed by a demon - for giants and demons are real, and still exist today. LOL!!!! Also see here for a quick rundown on why the rest of the paragraph is bullshit.   Now lets cut back to some of the text you quoted: But this really is beside the point. The debate over the worth of the traditional hagiography should not be reduced to an argument over different categories of authority. For the Bible is not just a book of stories whose veracity we are not permitted to question; it is a record of God's action among men and as man, a record of events that really occurred - and it speaks of marvels. We either live in a world in which these sort of things happen, or we do not. All evidence available suggests we do not, for example let's take this myth about St Denis. ...according to the Golden Legend: The body of St. Denis raised himself up, and bare his head between his arms, as the angel led him two leagues from the place, which is said the hill of the martyrs, unto the place where he now resteth, by his election, and by the purveyance of God. Modern hagiographies are unanimous in rejecting the story of St. Denis carrying his own head for two leagues. Are we really to believe that St. Denis was decapitated and then proceeded to rise up and carry his own head? Cmon, is that really the way the world works? Millions of people die every year and none of them rise up, especially not after being decapitated or similarly mauled. The same thing has been happening year in year out for many thousands of years; this is very clearly a world where these sorts of things do not happen.   Given what we know about how the world works, let's ask ourselves what would be more likely: 1) This guy really did rise up from the dead and walk around, head in hand, in violation of all the evidence we have about the nature of decapitations. OR. 2) Any explanation a first grader could come up with, using nothing but some blank paper and her Hello Kitty stationary set.   -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 9:05 am on July 4, 2009 Effigy, Moridin, well - you two feel the same about the resurrection as you do about the miracles in hagiography. Moridin references Hume, while Effigy just takes the assumptions of the dominant ideology unreflexively. The point stands though, if I were to say "the miracles of hagiography are just literary convention" or explain them away in some other manner, that would not make the resurrection more convincing for you. That is exactly the point being made, just from the other side than you two are on. -- Posted by Moridin at 9:14 am on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 7:05 pm on July 4, 2009 Effigy, Moridin, well - you two feel the same about the resurrection as you do about the miracles in hagiography. Moridin references Hume, while Effigy just takes the assumptions of the dominant ideology unreflexively. The point stands though, if I were to say "the miracles of hagiography are just literary convention" or explain them away in some other manner, that would not make the resurrection more convincing for you. That is exactly the point being made, just from the other side than you two are on. I for one think it is admirable for a Christian who once believed that virgin births can occur in humans or who thought that you can suddenly come alive after being clinically dead for three days to admit that these positions are rationally and scientifically untenable. Not so admirable to simply assert that it is all true and say it was magic. Like that explains something. http://magicanimation.com/misc/SidneyHarris_MiracleWeb.jpg Also not that the rejection of miracles is not an assumption of science, but a derived and well-supported conclusion. 1. If miracles can occur, it is not the case that science works. 2. It is the case that science works. 3. Therefore, it is not the case that miracles can occur. -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 9:15 am on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:14 pm on July 4, 2009 Also not that the rejection of miracles is not an assumption of science, but a derived and well-supported conclusion. 1. If miracles can occur, it is not the case that science works. 2. It is the case that science works. 3. Therefore, it is not the case that miracles can occur. Nonsense. Miraculous occurances are by their very nature exceptional things that in no sense have an effect on the day to day predictability of events according to empirical principles. -- Posted by Moridin at 9:19 am on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 7:15 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:14 pm on July 4, 2009  Also not that the rejection of miracles is not an assumption of science, but a derived and well-supported conclusion.    1. If miracles can occur, it is not the case that science works.    2. It is the case that science works.    3. Therefore, it is not the case that miracles can occur. Nonsense. Miraculous occurances are by their very nature exceptional things that in no sense have an effect on the day to day predictability of events according to empirical principles. But they do. If god can stop the suns movement across the sky any time he pleases or transform water into wine at any given point of his choosing, what does it mean to say that the earth orbits the sun, or that wine is different from water? If god can change the settings of your scientific instrument or change the facts of reality at any point without your knowledge if he so chooses, we cannot have any reliance upon your experimental results whatsoever and science would be void. -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 9:24 am on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:19 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 7:15 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:14 pm on July 4, 2009     Also not that the rejection of miracles is not an assumption of science, but a derived and well-supported conclusion.   1. If miracles can occur, it is not the case that science works.   2. It is the case that science works.   3. Therefore, it is not the case that miracles can occur. Nonsense. Miraculous occurances are by their very nature exceptional things that in no sense have an effect on the day to day predictability of events according to empirical principles. But they do. If god can stop the suns movement across the sky any time he pleases or transform water into wine at any given point of his choosing, what does it mean to say that the earth orbits the sun, or that wine is different from water?   If god can change the settings of your scientific instrument or change the facts of reality at any point without your knowledge if he so chooses, we cannot have any reliance upon your experimental results whatsoever and science would be void. Just because something could be wrong on occasion doesn't override the basic predictability. Unless you are looking for a degree of certainty from science which I indeed would not accept it can give. Just because God can do those things doesn't mean that all predictability is gone. The sun still does rise every morning, even if God could and has stopped it on some rare miraculous occasion. God could even stop it without disrupting the overall pattern of things so great is his power (which is not to say he necessarily would). -- Posted by SpM at 11:03 am on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 5:24 pm on July 4, 2009 The sun still does rise every morning, even if God could and has stopped it on some rare miraculous occasion. If your position is that miracles are an exceptionally rare occurrence then why are you not almost as sceptical as we are? It is not only fundamentally impossible claims that should be disbelieved by default: a highly improbable story, such as that of a man winning the jackpot on the national lottery 20 times over, requires a great deal of support to be plausible. If miracles are few and far between we should be cautious about accepting them in explanations or in legend. Or are we to believe that Sir Galahad really did heal the Fisher King and find the Holy Grail simply because there is no absolute evidence to the contrary? edit: I can empathise, after a fashion, with your frustration with Christians who laugh heartily at the apparent absurdity of such stories and of other religious traditions, and treat the miracles of the Bible as an embarrassing necessity not to be mentioned in polite company. However, blithely accepting every mediaeval fairy tale you come across seems likely to sever you from reality altogether and leave you floating up into the blue skies of insanity. And I'm sure we'd all miss you. -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 11:25 am on July 4, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 7:03 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 5:24 pm on July 4, 2009 The sun still does rise every morning, even if God could and has stopped it on some rare miraculous occasion. If your position is that miracles are an exceptionally rare occurrence then why are you not almost as sceptical as we are? Well I guess it depends how rare we mean by rare. And there are particular circumstances in which miracles occur. It is not only fundamentally impossible claims that should be disbelieved by default: a highly improbable story, such as that of a man winning the jackpot on the national lottery 20 times over, requires a great deal of support to be plausible. The fact of someones cult as a saint I think lends support to accounts of miracles related to their life, especially when that cult has gained recognition. Centuries of continual intercession etc. -- Posted by SpM at 11:49 am on July 4, 2009 They certainly haven't been too prevalent since the Age of Enlightenment dawned. As for the evidence of devotion, if you hold that Christianity is true then you hold that the vast majority of human belief is misguided and evidence of nothing but gullibility. -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 1:06 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 7:49 pm on July 4, 2009 They certainly haven't been too prevalent since the Age of Enlightenment dawned. Oh? Is that so? Or just in the circles you move in? As for the evidence of devotion, if you hold that Christianity is true then you hold that the vast majority of human belief is misguided and evidence of nothing but gullibility. You do? -- Posted by SpM at 1:16 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 9:06 pm on July 4, 2009 Oh? Is that so? Or just in the circles you move in? The circles you move in are peopled by reanimated corpses clutching their severed heads? If so, I think the world at large would greatly appreciate a YouTube video documenting this phenomenon. You do? Do you think Islam is literally true? -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 1:30 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 9:16 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 9:06 pm on July 4, 2009 Oh? Is that so? Or just in the circles you move in? The circles you move in are peopled by reanimated corpses clutching their severed heads? If so, I think the world at large would greatly appreciate a YouTube video documenting this phenomenon. There are modern saints with miraculous phenomenon, Padre Pio's Bilocation is the most obvious example off the top of my head. Do you think Islam is literally true? I don't need to think that the whole system is true, only that reported supernatural occurances might have happened (and that it is not unreasonable to take that position). Someone I know might do a ritual to get possessed by some god and I might not think that the thing that possesses them is God, but that doesn't mean the possession itself didn't happen. -- Posted by SpM at 1:55 pm on July 4, 2009 There are modern saints with alleged miraculous phenomena. It has never been conclusively documented, indicating that the dearth of historical evidence for it is not simply an inevitable difficulty in analysing events long past, but rooted in the inability or unwillingness of these saints to provide any real evidence for their claims. It does mean that humans are most often wrong in identifying the causes of their experiences when they employ subjective analysis. -- Posted by Moridin at 3:16 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 7:24 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:19 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 7:15 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:14 pm on July 4, 2009   Also not that the rejection of miracles is not an assumption of science, but a derived and well-supported conclusion.       1. If miracles can occur, it is not the case that science works.       2. It is the case that science works.       3. Therefore, it is not the case that miracles can occur. Nonsense. Miraculous occurances are by their very nature exceptional things that in no sense have an effect on the day to day predictability of events according to empirical principles.    But they do. If god can stop the suns movement across the sky any time he pleases or transform water into wine at any given point of his choosing, what does it mean to say that the earth orbits the sun, or that wine is different from water?  If god can change the settings of your scientific instrument or change the facts of reality at any point without your knowledge if he so chooses, we cannot have any reliance upon your experimental results whatsoever and science would be void. Just because something could be wrong on occasion doesn't override the basic predictability. Unless you are looking for a degree of certainty from science which I indeed would not accept it can give. Just because God can do those things doesn't mean that all predictability is gone. The sun still does rise every morning, even if God could and has stopped it on some rare miraculous occasion. God could even stop it without disrupting the overall pattern of things so great is his power (which is not to say he necessarily would). You don't seem to understand. It is not that god intervenes all the time, but the fundamental lack of predictability when he does that matters. If you cannot be certain that god hasn't changed your instruments or the facts of reality, how can you know that the information you discover is valid? You immediately have a huge uncertainty in your discovery, an uncertainty that is much higher than the measurements themselves, rendering science impotent. -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 3:34 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 11:16 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 7:24 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:19 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 7:15 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:14 pm on July 4, 2009        Also not that the rejection of miracles is not an assumption of science, but a derived and well-supported conclusion.    1. If miracles can occur, it is not the case that science works.    2. It is the case that science works.    3. Therefore, it is not the case that miracles can occur. Nonsense. Miraculous occurances are by their very nature exceptional things that in no sense have an effect on the day to day predictability of events according to empirical principles.   But they do. If god can stop the suns movement across the sky any time he pleases or transform water into wine at any given point of his choosing, what does it mean to say that the earth orbits the sun, or that wine is different from water?       If god can change the settings of your scientific instrument or change the facts of reality at any point without your knowledge if he so chooses, we cannot have any reliance upon your experimental results whatsoever and science would be void. Just because something could be wrong on occasion doesn't override the basic predictability. Unless you are looking for a degree of certainty from science which I indeed would not accept it can give.    Just because God can do those things doesn't mean that all predictability is gone. The sun still does rise every morning, even if God could and has stopped it on some rare miraculous occasion. God could even stop it without disrupting the overall pattern of things so great is his power (which is not to say he necessarily would). You don't seem to understand. It is not that god intervenes all the time, but the fundamental lack of predictability when he does that matters. If you cannot be certain that god hasn't changed your instruments or the facts of reality, how can you know that the information you discover is valid? You immediately have a huge uncertainty in your discovery, an uncertainty that is much higher than the measurements themselves, rendering science impotent. Just take multiple readings, which you should be doing anyway. Do your scientific instruments never err? How is the occasional supernatural phenomenon different to the occasional instrument error in that regard? -- Posted by Moridin at 4:59 pm on July 4, 2009 It is a nice idea to take multiple readings, but you cannot determine which is the result of nature acting like nature and which is the result of god changing nature. Let us say you do 100 measurements. 1 of them becomes 0.90. the rest becomes 0.6. Presuppose that god has performed some kind of miracles that changes the results of this measurement. Which value represent reality and which represents the changed reality? Why? You can't really determine this, can you? Maybe the miracle made a single anomaly, or maybe the miracle changed nature permanently to display different properties. Who are you to decide this? Yes, science can make mistakes occasionally, but we know of all the factors and insecurities that can occur. However, it is not anywhere near the massive insecurity in measurement the existence of a supernatural entity that can at any given time, according to his will, change your instruments or the facts of reality. Gods are thus Cartesian demons with infinite power. It makes science (as well as other concepts) completely void. Naturally, if we presuppose the falsehood of all things supernatural, this problem just goes away. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 5:13 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 6:59 pm on July 4, 2009 Yes, science can make mistakes occasionally, No... I don't believe it. How does "science" make mistakes? -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 5:58 pm on July 4, 2009 What you assume for the sake of the predictive model and objective reality are not one and the same thing. -- Posted by Peregrine at 12:08 am on July 5, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 4:59 pm on July 4, 2009 It is a nice idea to take multiple readings, but you cannot determine which is the result of nature acting like nature and which is the result of god changing nature. Let us say you do 100 measurements. 1 of them becomes 0.90. the rest becomes 0.6. Presuppose that god has performed some kind of miracles that changes the results of this measurement. Which value represent reality and which represents the changed reality? Why? You can't really determine this, can you? Maybe the miracle made a single anomaly, or maybe the miracle changed nature permanently to display different properties. Who are you to decide this? Yes, science can make mistakes occasionally, but we know of all the factors and insecurities that can occur. However, it is not anywhere near the massive insecurity in measurement the existence of a supernatural entity that can at any given time, according to his will, change your instruments or the facts of reality. Gods are thus Cartesian demons with infinite power. It makes science (as well as other concepts) completely void. Naturally, if we presuppose the falsehood of all things supernatural, this problem just goes away. Suppose God can defy natural law without our (humans) knowing? I believe your objection here relies on knowledge of a miraculous occurrence, a knowledge that would cause doubt of the reliability of the scientific method itself. If I read your position correctly, if God may intervene, defy natural law (laws science has thus dictated) and impose His direction, science qua science would fall prey to radical skepticism and therefore cease to function as it should. There are however many phenomena that confound scientific law and the traditional understanding of the "universe" that we derive from it. We continue to count on science. Unless you're prepared to claim that science can and will "explain" every phenomena, your objection to the miraculous doesn't appear valid. The first-person ontology (the object of phenomenology) serves as an example of such a confounding phenomenon. The phenomenological world might be construed as miraculous (indeed many phenomenologists consider seriously the Mystical) in this case.   Say miracles do exist and challenge the essential nature of science: could we not accommodate? Could we not continue to formulate natural laws, in consideration of the "God probability" (or some such factor)? Science remains, after all, a system like any other that reforms when faced with dialectical opposition. I anticipate an objection: what if miracles become so common that divine intervention does indeed threaten the essential nature of science? I believe an answer can be found in osmoticdespair's post: Quote: from osmoticdespair at 9:15 am on July 4, 2009 Miraculous occurrences are by their very nature exceptional things that in no sense have an effect on the day to day predictability of events according to empirical principles. Her definition defeats this objection: miracles are by definition exceptional, rare, uncommon. -- Posted by Moridin at 2:59 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 3:13 am on July 5, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 6:59 pm on July 4, 2009 Yes, science can make mistakes occasionally, No... I don't believe it. How does "science" make mistakes? Scientists could fail to take into account certain facts or insecurities, for instance. This would be a mistake done by scientists, not so much a mistake by science itself, though. -- Posted by Moridin at 3:00 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 3:58 am on July 5, 2009 What you assume for the sake of the predictive model and objective reality are not one and the same thing. Precisely and this is why we have to reject the supernatural in order to do science. -- Posted by Moridin at 3:10 pm on July 6, 2009 There are however many phenomena that confound scientific law and the traditional understanding of the "universe" that we derive from it. Yes, but all examples in the history of science, such as the fact that planets lie in the same plane (which Newton attributed to god) have been shown to have natural explanations, not magical and certainly not unpredictable in the way god would be. Unless you're prepared to claim that science can and will "explain" every phenomena, your objection to the miraculous doesn't appear valid. Science could in principle explain all features of our empirical world. This is because any valid explanation of the empirical world is by definition scientific. Now, do I think that science could practically explain every phenomena? No. Say miracles do exist and challenge the essential nature of science: could we not accommodate? Could we not continue to formulate natural laws, in consideration of the "God probability" (or some such factor)? Science remains, after all, a system like any other that reforms when faced with dialectical opposition. Yes, you could start putting the god factor as an insecurity in all of your calculations, but god bring an all-powerful and omnipresent entity, this god factor would be a great deal many orders of magnitude above the actual result. The insecurities would be much larger than the actual result, thereby rendering science impotent. Think of it like this. If you know you are using a broken machine that has the possibility of rendering completely inaccurate data, not just slightly inaccurate, but so wildly inaccurate that it would be equivalent to nonsense, then you would not be justified in using that machine at all. Your colleagues would laugh in your face. Her definition defeats this objection: miracles are by definition exceptional, rare, uncommon. No it does not since my argument is based on the unpredictability of a miracle will occur, not that miracles are frequent. Furthermore, miracles are not rare. Just look at the Old Testament, there is almost a miracle on each page. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 3:28 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:10 pm on July 6, 2009 Yes, but all examples in the history of science, such as the fact that planets lie in the same plane (which Newton attributed to god) have been shown to have natural explanations, not magical and certainly not unpredictable in the way god would be. "Planet found in tilted orbit around distant star" http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/crooked-0617.html -- Posted by Moridin at 3:33 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:28 am on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:10 pm on July 6, 2009 Yes, but all examples in the history of science, such as the fact that planets lie in the same plane (which Newton attributed to god) have been shown to have natural explanations, not magical and certainly not unpredictable in the way god would be. "Planet found in tilted orbit around distant star" http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/crooked-0617.html Yes, we have known for quite a while that there are planets that do not necessarily lie in the same plane as the rest. This is due to factors such as collisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Orbit But this is not really relevant to the argument that the general distribution of planets that have not been hit by collisions lie in a plane is not a mystery any longer. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 3:36 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:33 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:28 am on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:10 pm on July 6, 2009 Yes, but all examples in the history of science, such as the fact that planets lie in the same plane (which Newton attributed to god) have been shown to have natural explanations, not magical and certainly not unpredictable in the way god would be. "Planet found in tilted orbit around distant star"    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/crooked-0617.html Yes, we have known for quite a while that there are planets that do not necessarily lie in the same plane as the rest. This is due to factors such as collisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Orbit But this is not really relevant to the argument that the general distribution of planets that have not been hit by collisions lie in a plane is not a mystery any longer. Is that not an unproven hypothesis? Pages: 1 2 3  Next